Please, here on the page 6, in the definition 0.11 I wonder what happens with the definition of "tcf" when $I$ is this poset:
o o
\ /
\ /
o
This $I$ has no $<_*-$ increasing sequence, am I right?
Please, here on the page 6, in the definition 0.11 I wonder what happens with the definition of "tcf" when $I$ is this poset:
o o
\ /
\ /
o
This $I$ has no $<_*-$ increasing sequence, am I right?
Copyright © 2021 JogjaFile Inc.
Yes, you are correct. More or less.
Note that the true cofinality is always a regular cardinal and never larger than the size of the partial order.
Since arguably $0$ is excluded by the requirement of a cofinal sequence, that means that the true cofinality of a finite partial order is either $1$ if there is a maximum, or "undefined" (which might as well be $0$) otherwise.
Of course, the definition is meant to be applied to partial orders given by $\prod_{i\in I}\lambda_i/F$ where $I$ is an infinite set of infinite cardinals, usually regular, and $F$ is a filter/ideal on $I$. From that perspective finite objects have no bearing on anything, but they do make good toys on occasion.